DRIP DRIP! Unempoyment rolls at 20 YEAR HIGH!!!!!!! That's 1983 land

[ShaneGR]

U.S. Jobless Rolls Hit 20-Year High




http://money.excite.com/ht/nw/bus/20030710/hle_bus-n1042391.html

Thursday July 10, 11:32 AM EDT

By Tim Ahmann

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of jobless Americans receiving benefits hit its highest point in more than 20 years last month, the government said on Thursday in a report underscoring the persistent weakness of the U.S. labor market.

The number of idled workers on the benefit rolls jumped by 87,000 in the week ending June 28 to 3.82 million, the highest level since February 1983, the Labor Department said.

It also said first-time claims for unemployment insurance rose by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 439,000 last week from 434,000 a week earlier, surprising economists on Wall Street who had expected claims to edge down a bitU.S. Jobless Rolls Hit 20-Year High

Thursday July 10, 11:32 AM EDT

By Tim Ahmann

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of jobless Americans receiving benefits hit its highest point in more than 20 years last month, the government said on Thursday in a report underscoring the persistent weakness of the U.S. labor market.

The number of idled workers on the benefit rolls jumped by 87,000 in the week ending June 28 to 3.82 million, the highest level since February 1983, the Labor Department said.

It also said first-time claims for unemployment insurance rose by 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 439,000 last week from 434,000 a week earlier, surprising economists on Wall Street who had expected claims to edge down a bit.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. Yeah but look what happened in 1984

we got another 4 years of sieve head.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

15. Yeah the economy started to turn aroun in 84

Even though technically unemployment was at a higher rate in 1984 than 1980. Unemployment peaked around 1982 so 84 looked better.

I tend to think most of the Bush tax cut will be eaten up by state and local taxes however. I had a property tax increase this year that pretty much exceeds anything G DUHbya and the Repugnantcans plan to give me.

In addition we weren't involved in any long term military conflict back then.. Sure the Marine barracks was blown up in Lebanon in '83 but the people soon forgot about it after we kicked butt in Grenada. <snicker>

[Jackpine Radical]

16. YOUR tax cut of a few hundred bucks

will vanish in property taxes, sales taxes, whatever.

The amount the average multimillionaire gets back is a lot larger than that, and won't vanish in the same way.

[Cocoa]

2. wow

that's even longer than that guy was in a coma.

[blue america]

3. It was 7.5% when Reagan was re-elected though

But a more "encouraging" stat is that Bush is likely to be the first president since Hoover to have less Americans working after his first term than there were on his Inauguration Day.

[Walt Starr]

4. Wow, my wife lost her job during this period

She won't be part of the statistics until the report for this week comes out, though as she just applied for unemployment this week (due to a small severence).

[Doctor_J]

5. But don't forget

Smirk inherited this recession :barf:

[Nederland]

6. To be honest

This is a little misleading. Sure, the number of unemployed is greater than it has been in 20 years, but that's primarily because the population is larger. The honest way to compare is to look at the unemployment rate, which is only </sarcasm> higher that its been in nine years.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. No. Look at the number of EMPLOYED

and THAT number is down.

[Nederland]

10. Ok, let's

Number of employed in June (in thousands):

1983 06 111879
2003 06 147096

Source: http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/fedstl/clf16ov

Doesn't look like the number is down to me...

Again, I say you always have to look at the rate, not the raw numbers. After all, if you look at the rate, Bush still sucks.

[Interrobang]

7. The trickle-down theory at work...

What's that you say? "You can't piss on my back and tell me it's rain"?

Yeah, that's about what they're trying to do...

[Ein]

12. the very idea of trickle-down economics

is insulting!

'voodoo' I'd smash Poppy's face in, if he got within a few feet of me.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

14. It's not trickle down

It's trickle on

[Ekaterina]

9. on a peripherally related note

I have to say, $550 BILLION tax cut and my earnings statement today shows I will net a *GASP* whole SIX more dollars a month.......I mean, IMAGINE the possibilities.......I don't know whether to buy 3 extra gallons of gas, pay off my house, or spend a month in the Carribean.........all thanks to the advance on the future bankruptcy of our nation so Georgie boy's party pals will have a couple more million to hide offshore. Is this a great era or what? (total sarcasm).....

Tell you what: I will give them back my six bucks and they can give us back America.

Bunch of fartknockers.......

[dfong63]

11. interesting

AP has a very similar story reporting most of the same facts, yet it was given the headline jobless claims at highest level since may

it seems to be a clear case of bogus headline, since the text of the AP story contains the same claim as the Reuters version: highest since 1983.

on edit: the story claims that, ``The Labor Department (news - web sites) reported Thursday that for the work week ending July 5, new claims filed for unemployment insurance rose by a seasonally adjusted 5,000 to 439,000, the highest level since the week ending May 31.''

while much further down it says, ``The number of out-of-work Americans continuing to draw jobless benefits jumped by 87,000 to 3.8 million for the work week ending June 28, the most recent period for which that information is available. That represented the highest level since Feb. 26, 1983, and suggested that not a lot of hiring is taking place.''

thus, the headline should have cited "new jobless claims" rather than "jobless claims". rather than a case of "bogus headline", maybe it's a case of "spin doctoring"?

[Walt Starr]

13. SPN, SPIN, SPIN, SPIN!!!!!

The Freepers are like tops over this one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943647/posts

This is the spin du jour:

"Unemployment rate is lagging indicator and tends to raise even after the economy is starting to grow again. The reason for this is that many discouraged workers who had dropped out of the labor force, seeing improvement in the economy, rush out trying to get a job."


BUAHAHAHAHAHA. People who were so discouraged as to not even look for a job see an improving economy, rush out to find a job and thus increase the unemployment rate! WHAT MORANS(sic)!!!!

:crazy:

[JCMach1]

17. It lags AFTER other indicators turn around

Last time I checked, I saw no signs of a turn around-- just stagnation.

[Ponderer]

21. Actually, business investment is starting to pick up

Granted, 4% unemployment is not coming back anytime soon, but I wouldn't be surprised if we dipped a little below 6% unemployment in a few months.

[Ponderer]

18. That statement is very misleading

Let's concentrate on the unemployment rate and quit trying to spin statistics by trying to pass off population growth as something worse than what it is.

This stat is no worse of a spin than freepers saying that jobs have been created under Bush.

[U4ikLefty]

19. Shall we quote the number of jobs lost since * has taken office

or perhaps the size of the deficit since the coup?

[Ponderer]

20. Statistics are put better in porportion in terms of percentage

Saying that unemployment has rose from 4% to 6.5% means a lot more factually, than saying that a nation of 280 million has the same unemplyment now as a nation of 235 million 20 years ago.